Talk:Girl Meets STEM/@comment-26999065-20160117090619/@comment-26999065-20160118205353
I don’t recall ever mentioning love, though somebody else did, and admittedly love is a vaguely defined word that is sometimes and improperly used interchangeably with the word sex. I don’t tend to do that. But I also won’t confuse the terms Lust and Sexual Attraction. Lust is a very strong, almost uncontrollable sexual attraction, and often carries other negative connotations, while normal sexual attraction isn’t as strong or hard to control or in any way negative. In fact, it’s quite natural. But, for the record, love is love and sex is sex and a person should never confuse one for the other. While they can go hand-in-hand, and it is often a beautiful thing when they do, it has never been necessary to be in love to have sex, or to necessarily have sex if one happened to be in love. But, also for the record, most people beginning new relationships usually overlap their love and sexual desires and may simply say love when they mean both. With that understanding, A.) One can be in love with someone and have sex with that person. B.) One can be in love with someone and not have sex with that person. C.) One might not be in love with someone and still can have sex with that person. D.) And one might not be in love with someone and not have sex with that person. That about covers the possibilities, and while examples of each might be instructive, it is not the point of this post, and I am not your instructor on human interrelationships. I only make comment on them here since Rowan seems to have brought up the issue, or somebody else seems to have missed the point and felt compelled to impose a moral component to the topic that only seems to attach for them when dealing with homosexual or bisexual relations, but not the sometimes even more questionable and immoral behavior of heterosexuals, which they don’t feel needs to be addressed or requires any special comment. Go figure. I swear, it’s almost like they feel on judgment day God might point out they didn’t condemn homosexuallity each and every time they had the chance, so they can’t enter the kingdom of heaven because of that failure. Sheesh. Anyway, of course sexual attraction and non-sexual attraction are different. I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life than saying they are the EXACT same thing. But love is often defined in many different ways – brotherly love, love for one’s fellow man, love somebody like a brother or a sister, etc. without necessarily meaning one is sexually aroused there, but it also often means or is accompanied by sexual desire. Few people probably would ever get married if they didn’t sexually desire one another, after all. Some, sure, but not most, I suspect. They may stay married if love or sexual desire fades, but that's another matter. For those who usually claim sexual orientation is a choice, however, they are not really talking about the ability to control one’s actions, or the choice to act or not act on one’s sexual attraction. They are talking about the ability to choose whom (or which gender) one is sexually attracted to in the first place, and that’s just a fantasy. For those who insist there should or must be a moral component to all this, they usually also insist one should be in love before they have sex. In fact, many religions go further and require two people to be married before having sex with one another, lest the union be immoral and sinful. I am not attempting here to make moral judgments or pass judgment on others regarding the issue of sexual orientation. It’s not my place. Yet, I will mention I think it inherently unfair for somebody to tell a person who is homosexual or bisexual that they can’t love, in a sexual way, somebody of the same gender and yet deny them the right to get married while insisting one must be married to have sex, lest they be committing an immoral act. You finally seem to be admitting that a homosexual man, for example, cannot choose to be sexually attracted to a woman, but maybe your religious beliefs only say homosexuals and bisexuals can and should always still refrain from having sex with members of the same gender, even if they are in love with each other, and even if they would be willing to get married first. From such a point of view, homosexual men would be condemned to having no sex life, or only an immoral one, and unless they married somebody they did not find sexually attractive, like a woman, they can’t be married, either, or enjoy any of the benefits of a full marriage that often includes components of love, sexual attraction, desire, and yes, even sometimes lust. As sexual beings, that is like saying to them, “Tough luck, but because I’m uncomfortable with homosexuality, you can only have half a normal life.” Now that’s ridiculous. Sexual lust usually fades even quicker than normal sexual attraction, and sexual desires often cool as time passes and as a more meaningful love grows – at least ideally. But I digress. And while most people do have rules that allow or require one to do this or not do that regarding love and sex and relationships, and could bring a moral dimension to various practices – like cheating on one’s spouse, knowingly engaging in a sexual relationship with an individual already married to another, etc. - the issue here and at hand is, all other things being equal, whether homosexual or bisexual parings in and of themselves are immoral. I say they are not. Many religions disagree, but most such rules were written by men (probably homophobic men) who knew damn little about the subject 2 or 3 thousand years ago. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs on the matter, trying to impose them on others is the same as trying to impose your religion on others, and we don’t consider that acceptable behavior in the land of the free and the home of the brave. In fact, many consider even trying to force religion on others to be immoral behavior. One can lead by example, or share their beliefs, of course, unless those beliefs are delivered in an unwelcome, or threatening, and/or harmful manner. And, probably not coincidentally, those who almost feel compelled to go out of their way to comment on homosexuality and bisexuality usually do have a threatening and negative intent, even if they don't come right out and say it more explicitly. If that's not you, fine, but if it is you, IMO, what you're doing is inappropriate, and the very behavior Rowan seems to be seeking to eliminate. But that's just my opinion of what she's doing - trying to gain acceptance for members of the LGBTQ community - whether she is a member of that community herself, or not.